The guy who ran on "hope" was elected President twice, and then continued doing the same things his predecessor did that we "hoped" that he would stop.

I didn't feel that way. Obama is just the president, not a dictator whatever the republicans would like us to believe. But he did getone thing important done in a term that was otherwise quite lacking in oppurtunities.

He had the power to roll back, or at least stop using, the executive powers that Bush established. Instead, he expanded them, to the point of personally authorizing the extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas.

Can you imagine how it would have went if he didn't do that? I mean, ya, sucky choice, but when the Republicans are ready to pounce on him for being weak on national security ("see we told you Obama was a weak"), I see how it is hard to go backwards.

If there is one thing Americans hate more than they gov killing Americans abroad, its Americans getting killed by terrorists at home. Ya, this is a very abstract threat, but politics revolves around it.

Well, if maintaining power for yourself or your party is one of your top priorities, "Republicans are ready to pounce" is a sound justification.

One could ask however, is that kind of thinking what people expected or hoped for?

> It is our own fault: we no longer vote for idealism.

We who?

> And the other party will just drag you through the mud if you try to run on something like "hope."

A pretty much immutable property of the two-party system in the US has been -- from day one -- that the other side will drag you through the mud for whatever you say. Whether it is idealistic or pragmatic or anything else.

The idea that this is somehow new is, well, historically blind.

We the citizens and voters. We do vote these people in office.

I believe that's incorrect, although I cannot find the article that I read recently: One of the oddities of modern America is that one party promotes idealism strongly (or it's antagonistic synonym, ideology, if you like) and many Americans strongly identify themselves (and vote) by idealism. The other party has been more pragmatic, and apparently a significant majority of Americans like the specific policies. A chunk of them just don't vote for their preferred policies.

Not really, but pragmatism, rather than idealism, would be a better idea. Most of the time, people believe in ludicrous promises and take the candidate as a just and incorruptible individual.

One would be better off looking at what candidates and their backers truthfully represent.